Grammar monster, I have a question. Why are you identifying the object of a preposition as an indirect object? I know both give same information, but I always excluded prepositional phrases (actually, the object in same) as being indirect objects. Those nouns have another job, OP.
You explain really good but the fact is I don't really like how u talk in ur vids but yesterday I was watching what's a direct object on ur channel and it was amazing how u explained I also asked u to reply me if u can I would be so happy if u would reply...THANK YOU YOUR THE BEST!!!😝😝🙂
Hi, Alexandru. I have a British English accent. It’s not regional, I’ve been told. This means it’s not obvious where I’m from in England. This is probably because I grew up in Germany.
Sir, According to rule Indirect Object is never preceded by Preposition then how come ' to her father ' is indirect object so instead it should be prepositional object.Please Rectify it???
Hi, that’s not a rule. An indirect object can be preceded by a preposition. In fact, most are. You’re right though. They are also the objects of prepositions. They’re both. 👍
@@Grammar-Monster No, they are not both. Indirect objects really do precede direct objects. When it switched to an object of a preposition, then it becomes a prepositional phrase that is a modifier not an indirect object.
Aren't you skipping in more than one example the crucial rule that the indirect object always goes first? if this isn't the case it's not a direct/indirect object, it's something else
In a few examples, you mislabeled the indirect object. For example, Paula passed the butter to John. In that sentence there is no indirect object. To John is a prepositional phrase, so John is an object of preposition. The indirect object cannot be in a prepositional phrase. It has to be between the action verb and direct object.
Hi, Pepper This point is well covered in the Grammar Monster lesson on indirect objects, and it is well debated among grammarians. I fully agree that "John" is the object of the preposition "to," but many teach that "John" is also the direct object of the verb. In other words, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Some, like you, say they are mutually exclusive. Some, however, go the other way. Thanks for clarifying this point. It should have been explained in the video.
An indirect object must precede a direct object. The example, "Paula passed the parcel to her father" is NOT an indirect object. "Father" is the object of the preposition. If you want that sentence to have an indirect object, it should read, "Paula passed her father the parcel."
both sentences have indirect objects no matter what. i'm just learning this now for TEFL. the object which can be preceded by a preposition is the indirect object (although there isn't always a preposition involved, there is always an indirect object in the case of two different objects being used in a clause). here is an activity, copied and pasted from my course, that this video helped me correctly complete. In the sentences below, mark whether the objects in the following clauses are direct (DO) or indirect (IO) by clicking them: I sent an email ( *DO* / IO ) to my boss ( DO / *IO* ). She wrote me ( DO / *IO* ) a letter ( *DO* / IO ). I threw the ball ( *DO* / IO ) to the dog ( DO / *IO* ). She told me ( DO / *IO* ) a secret ( *DO* / IO ).
You are mistaken, and if you've been taught that you need a better teacher! Switching phrases around doesn't change their grammatical function. John gave the book (to Simon). John gave (Simon) the book. The functional meaning is the same - the only difference is stylistic. So the function of subject/verb/object/indirect-object is the same. The preposition "to" hasn't gone away in the second example - it's implied. It's the same with so-called transitive and intransitive verbs. Robert cried. It seems that there is no object here, but it's just that we're able to drop it for efficiency because we all know what Robert cried - Robert cried tears. The object is implied. The structure of the sentence has not changed. There's not really such a thing as an intransitive verb - only verbs where we can sometimes drop the object because everyone knows what it is. If small stylistic changes like swapping the order of phrases or implying obvious meanings really did change the grammatical function of words, language would become totally unworkable!
Very clear. Wel explained and fun to watch. Thanks for posting. This does deserve more views :)
Powerful! 🔥
?
so helpful my techers wouldent help me but u did thanks
i also subscribed can you plz reply
i also hit the bell so hard i almost went deaf
Thank you for making these videos!
I hope you get more views and subscribers!
best excplaining. Thank you so much!
Just to ask, can time and location be a indirect object?
Thanks alot iam in 5th grade and iwant to learn that because tommorow was our english exam
I love "Grammar-monster", it helped me a lot.
Same here! He explains so good! 😀
Thanks “Grammar Monster”!! I love this channel.
Thanks. We’re trying...more to come.
Grammar monster, I have a question. Why are you identifying the object of a preposition as an indirect object? I know both give same information, but I always excluded prepositional phrases (actually, the object in same) as being indirect objects. Those nouns have another job, OP.
k
You mean that you made the direct object as object complement of the indirect object?. Like this?
- i give (object)you (object complement)an apple
Lovely.
Thanks!
You explain really good but the fact is I don't really like how u talk in ur vids but yesterday I was watching what's a direct object on ur channel and it was amazing how u explained I also asked u to reply me if u can I would be so happy if u would reply...THANK YOU YOUR THE BEST!!!😝😝🙂
I really hope u can reply me!
Hi, Alexandru. I have a British English accent. It’s not regional, I’ve been told. This means it’s not obvious where I’m from in England. This is probably because I grew up in Germany.
Hello but this is Jasmine not Alexandru just for u to know, thank you! 😁
this is way more helpful than i thought it would be!
Sir, According to rule Indirect Object is never preceded by Preposition then how come ' to her father ' is indirect object so instead it should be prepositional object.Please Rectify it???
Hi, that’s not a rule. An indirect object can be preceded by a preposition. In fact, most are. You’re right though. They are also the objects of prepositions. They’re both. 👍
@@Grammar-Monster No, they are not both. Indirect objects really do precede direct objects. When it switched to an object of a preposition, then it becomes a prepositional phrase that is a modifier not an indirect object.
Aren't you skipping in more than one example the crucial rule that the indirect object always goes first? if this isn't the case it's not a direct/indirect object, it's something else
Where indirect sentence should be used ?
I’m not familiar with the term “indirect sentence.”
Maybe this will help: www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/indirect_questions.htm
In a few examples, you mislabeled the indirect object. For example, Paula passed the butter to John. In that sentence there is no indirect object. To John is a prepositional phrase, so John is an object of preposition. The indirect object cannot be in a prepositional phrase. It has to be between the action verb and direct object.
Hi, Pepper
This point is well covered in the Grammar Monster lesson on indirect objects, and it is well debated among grammarians. I fully agree that "John" is the object of the preposition "to," but many teach that "John" is also the direct object of the verb. In other words, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Some, like you, say they are mutually exclusive. Some, however, go the other way. Thanks for clarifying this point. It should have been explained in the video.
hi all, what is the defintion of phonlogical words in lingustics
I Love “grammar monster” very helpful
You are the best
An indirect object must precede a direct object. The example, "Paula passed the parcel to her father" is NOT an indirect object. "Father" is the object of the preposition. If you want that sentence to have an indirect object, it should read, "Paula passed her father the parcel."
both sentences have indirect objects no matter what. i'm just learning this now for TEFL. the object which can be preceded by a preposition is the indirect object (although there isn't always a preposition involved, there is always an indirect object in the case of two different objects being used in a clause).
here is an activity, copied and pasted from my course, that this video helped me correctly complete.
In the sentences below, mark whether the objects in the following clauses are direct (DO) or indirect (IO) by clicking them:
I sent an email ( *DO* / IO ) to my boss ( DO / *IO* ).
She wrote me ( DO / *IO* ) a letter ( *DO* / IO ).
I threw the ball ( *DO* / IO ) to the dog ( DO / *IO* ).
She told me ( DO / *IO* ) a secret ( *DO* / IO ).
You are mistaken, and if you've been taught that you need a better teacher!
Switching phrases around doesn't change their grammatical function.
John gave the book (to Simon).
John gave (Simon) the book.
The functional meaning is the same - the only difference is stylistic. So the function of subject/verb/object/indirect-object is the same. The preposition "to" hasn't gone away in the second example - it's implied.
It's the same with so-called transitive and intransitive verbs.
Robert cried.
It seems that there is no object here, but it's just that we're able to drop it for efficiency because we all know what Robert cried - Robert cried tears. The object is implied. The structure of the sentence has not changed. There's not really such a thing as an intransitive verb - only verbs where we can sometimes drop the object because everyone knows what it is.
If small stylistic changes like swapping the order of phrases or implying obvious meanings really did change the grammatical function of words, language would become totally unworkable!
Thank u grammar monster!
this video was posted on my birthday
Yay! We knew that!
How do u know grammar monster? Are u spying on him/her?
very helpful.
U should change ur profile it's really inappropriate
THANK YOU GRAMMAR MONSTER
De nada
Ok buddy ur giving protection to someone on rlly y that